Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Reverse Discrimination Cases: 3
BOGLE v. MCCLURE
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C700a (11th Cir. June 6, 2003)
2003-06-06
REVERSE DISCRIMINATION
In this case, seven white female librarians sued for reverse racial discrimination. Their claims involved their transfers from the Central Library in Atlanta to other branch libraries. Hooker was hired by the Board of Trustees to manage the library system. She recommended bringing in more black librarians to Atlanta in order to make the black population in Atlanta more comfortable with Central Library. At the time she suggested this idea there was only one black librarian at Central Library. She and the Board then discussed proposals and their various legal effects over the next couple of months. The Personnel Committe approved 28 reassignments that Hooker suggested; 15 were black and 13 were white. The seven white librarians reported their duties and responsibilities were reduced, but their pay was not. All but two of the black individuals transferred received either lateral transfers or promotions, and the two that did not had been critical of the Board in the past. The jury awarded the seven librarians $23 million in damages, but the district court remitted the total award to $17 million. The defendants appealed on several grounds.
The appeals court affirmed the district court on all counts. The court found that the defendants were not entitled to a qualified immunity defense. The defendants claimed they were entitled to a mixed-motive defense during jury instructions. The district court gave a proximate cause jury instruction. It instructed the jury not to find for the librarians if they believed the Librarians would have been transferred irrespective of race. The court ruled the jury instruction given was essentially the same as a mixed-motive instruction because, if the jury would have believed race was not the reason they were transferred, they would have ruled for the defendants. The court also ruled documents sent by the defendants attorney to Hooker were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, because the court did not think it was reasonable under the circumstances for the individuals to expect the memos to be confidential.
Read More
Plaintiff was employed as a City power plant mechanic for approximately (13) years. He alleged that he was discriminated against in favor of black employees in job assignments and overtime, that his supervisor belittled him and made inappropriate comments to the plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff was employed as a City power plant mechanic for approximately (13) years. He alleged that he was discriminated against in favor of other black employees in job assignments and overtime, that his supervisor belittled him and made inappropriate comments to the plaintiff
Read More
